by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.
This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes.
There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.
Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.
Manmade Global Warming as the Justification
Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.
But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.
Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.
Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.
I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”
No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.
The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publicly on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr.
These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?
Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.
Or will they?
The Times They Are A-Changin’
How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the man-made global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?
The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.
Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.
And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.
The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom
Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.
Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable.
I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book –Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.
One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
In fact, it already has.
The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.
Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.
If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.
Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.
Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?
Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.
But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.
Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.
What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.
Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.
But What About Equality?
Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves.
A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.
If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.
And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.
Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.
Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.
A New Fight Begins Tomorrow
The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.
Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.
There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change.
And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.
But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.
So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Michael-
Sure, add domestically drilled oil, but be careful as oil sands may soon become truly viable and then even more oil will come from Canada and not the Middle East.
Soros on the left (who sat out this election, BTW) vs the Koch Brothers, Target, Fox News, Halliburton, big oil, Murdoch, the coal industry, big polluters, and Wall Street.
Who is on your side…
It is not just public debt that is our enemy. Total credit market debt now stands at 350% of GDP (about 90% public and 260% private). This is a historically high level and cannot be sustained, for comparison, the total debt as a percent of GDP was only about 250% prior to the great depression. It then exploded during the great depression as GDP collapsed. Whether we like it or not the bank bail out saved us from another great depression…….if Hoover had it to do over again I think he would have done the same thing.
We still have to climb down off this ledge (cliff?) we are standing on. Fall off in one direction and we suffer runaway inflation and a worthless dollar as others become unwilling to finance our rapidly growing public debt. Fall off in the other direction and we suffer another great depression and massive defaults on private debt as the money supply collapses. Both situations would cause a reversion to the mean of the debt/GDP ratio, but both would also be very painful to us as a society.
There remains a lot to do and we need real leaders. So far I have seen few on either side of the aisle.
evanmjones says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:59 pm
That’s after a marginal rate cut from 70% to 28%. Those are the facts.
Let’s randomly pick 3 of the wealthiest Americans who’s rise to riches began in the ’80s- and also benefited from the cut in the top marginal rate-
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett.
Two techies and a capitalist.
Is it possible to quantify how many millions of jobs they have created? Can we even fathom how much our quality of life has improved due to technology created by Gates and Jobs, and the efficient use of capital by Buffet?
Government needs to get out of the way and let the Gates’s, Jobs’s, and Buffetts do their thing.
brad,
I don’t believe your house price link is accurate. True, there was a recession around ’90 – ’91 that affected prices. But not that much. Your link has a disclaimer:
“The above chart estimates the market value…”
Reality trumps estimates. I was a real estate broker in California during that time [now retired]. Things were not nearly as bad as that chart shows. But then, it’s just someone’s estimate…
Tomorrow, November 2, 2001, will be a referendum on TV/Cable mainstream media news, and its power to sway an election the way they were cheer leading for.
If little old FOX didn’t have all the alternative media tugging on the rope with them, to create a cosmic shift in the political circles of astronomical proportions, with a massive win for the pseudo-republican party, the rest of the MSM that is massive in influence other than FOX, knows, knows, the emperor has no clothes. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, yes all these emperors. Cheering for their chief Emperor BO since 2007. These are the ones cheering for that socialist global agenda. And now they and everyone know, knows 70% don’t like the way they were trying to steer us so we rejected them and their vision.
We had a lot of help. The Tea Party movement Astroturfed the GOP. Something the MSM tried to ignore since the Ron Paul Movement started it December 16, 2007 with the theme for their presidential fund raiser, The Boston Tea Party. They set an Internet record of $6 million raised for Ron Paul in a one day using only the internet.
The most interesting thing about the Tea Party is they do not have a leader. They are more like the internet blogs doing what they do by crowdsourcing. The model came from the Ron Paul Movement. We raised $4 million on November 5th and $6 million on December 16th. We had no leader of the grassroots movement. It just sprung up and grew. They had a message.
DirkH says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm
“If the inflation process can be controlled,[…]”
I’d like to add that i see it as inevitable – my personal interest is finding out when it will start, what its effects will be, and whether it will stay in control.
This from a fellow user at http://www.freerepublic.com; see also:
http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/08/socialists-in-united-states-congress.html
“The following members of Congress are Marxists and terrorist coddlers who have rebranded themselves as “Progressives” in an attempt to hide their agenda
Nancy Pelosi was one of the original members of the “Congressional Progressive Caucus” and only left when she was named Minority Leader.
She is now Speaker of the House and 2 heartbeats away from President of the United States.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by five members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time.
Additional House representatives joined soon, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
All members are members of the Democratic Party or caucus with the Democratic Party. There are currently 82 total declared Progressives including 79 voting Representatives, 2 non-voting Delegates, and 1 Senator.
Using information from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), I separated the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus into four groups, based on a subjective review of his or her major contributors. Where appropriate, there is a link to an associated video highlight of the Congressman’s/women’s sheer brilliance.
[YES] = Most top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
[MOSTLY] = Many top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
[MIXED] = Some top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions, but some are not
[NO] = Few top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (as of 2-JUN-2010)
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) [YES]
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06) [YES]
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) [YES]
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05) [YES]
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Was it the Korean War or the Vietnam War? I get confused”)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02) [MIXED]
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) [YES]
Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04) [MIXED]
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08) [YES]
Senate Members
Hon. Roland Burris (IL) [NO]
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT) [YES]
Hon. Tom Udall (NM) [YES]
House Members
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) [YES]
Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) [YES]
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01) [YES]
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03) [MOSTLY]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “Rank has its privledges”)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08) [MIXED]
Hon. André Carson (IN-07) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL) [NO]
Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) [YES]
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01) [YES]
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) [MIXED]
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09) [MIXED]
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Read the bill”)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07) [YES]
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07) [YES]
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) [YES]
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) [YES]
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02) [YES]
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “I’m a Congressman. I demand special treatment.”)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04) [MIXED] Lots of financial institutions
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Statements on Fannie and Freddie just before the collapse”)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11) [MIXED]
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) [YES]
Hon. John Hall (NY-19) [MIXED]
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “I don’t care about the Constitution”)
Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) [YES]
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) [YES]
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02) [MIXED]
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Guam might tip over and capsize”)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) [YES]
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) [MIXED]
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09) [YES]
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05) [YES]
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02) [YES]
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3) [MIXED]
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) [MIXED]
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07) [NO]
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07) [MIXED]
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03) [YES]
Hon. George Miller (CA-07) [YES]
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04) [YES]
Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08) [NO]
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) [MOSTLY]
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-All) [YES]
Hon. John Olver (MA-01) [YES]
Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06) [YES]
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04) [YES]
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) [YES]
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01) [MIXED]
Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02) [NO]
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) [MIXED]
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) [YES]
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) [YES]
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01) [YES]
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39) [YES]
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) [YES]
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16) [YES]
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) [YES]
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) [MOSTLY]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “On the national debt, which is a sign of wealth(?)”)
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Demonstrating his inate charm with a voter”)
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “On the limits of federal power – at 2:50”)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02) [YES]
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06) [YES]
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) [YES]
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) [YES]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “Socializing, Nationalizing — so what’s the difference?”)
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) [MIXED]
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) [MOSTLY]
* (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Demonstrating his renowned understanding of the issues”
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL) [MIXED]
Posted by Soquel by the Creek at 4:54 PM
Labels: campaign financing, Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC, Democratic Socialists of America, DSA
0 comments:
[edit] Former members
* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) – Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) – Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) – Retired from Congress
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) – Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) – Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) – Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) – Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) – Died in 2008
* Tom Udall (NM Senate)
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) – Died in plane crash in 2002”
—
As you see, these "progressives/communists/socialists" get their money from the national labor unions who get their power and money and funding and members from the national, state, and local governments. A nice feedback cycle – if you can get on it by bribing the unions. The "people" have no say and no control – it is the national labor unions (government employees – who are the largest donors to their democrat employees (er, democrat ONLY! – Representatives and Senators) .
And in fact, contrary to you complaining about the ONE TV cable news program that does not bow to your socialist themes, the rest of the entire ABBCNNBCBS news media in the country DOES vote democrat, marry democrats, live democrat and go to work as democrats when they leave their TV and media jobs.
Soros IS socialism personified. Evil, rich, selfish, self-centered, and bent on destroying the world as we (used to) know it. He has destroyed country's' monetary systems before (Asia, Europe, UK, etc.) and is hard at work repeating that "success" in the US – under your themes and with your assistance.
So, my question to you, is: Why? Why do you want failure for your fellow humans, death to many millions more, and more riches for those liberals and socialists who enslave you?
Brad
Does your doing what you consider to be the “morally” corrrect thing do do depend on other people doing the same? I ask, but do not need your answer. If you write a check to the goverment each year based on what you think should be paid, then my hat is off to you, if not your answer to my question is in the affirmitive.
BTW, you have already called one feloow poster selfish when you know nothing about him.
Isn’t Soros a convicted felon in France for manipulating their monetary system?
A major statement from an ‘insider’ who personally knows many of the scientists who are the main advocates of AGWH.
A strong political element to his comments which, of course, is the essence of the current obsession with CO2.
IMVHO I think the division between Left and Right politics is unhelpful.
Governments should spend no more than they raise in taxation; equality of opportunity is an essential aim but equality of achievement is impossible given the inevitable Gaussian distribution of intelligence and motivation.
Population control can only be obtained by emancipating women from the control of male dominated religions – Spain and Italy are excellent examples of falling birthrates – and raising their standard of living and opportunity.
The success of AGWH is partly the result of educational systems that fail to instil numeracy and the fundamental principals of the scientific method. Many of those failed pupils become politicians and thus are unable to understand the difficulties with AGW and the ignorant energy policies which they follow.
Hopefully, serious US investigations will follow the coming elections.
Ultimately, the honesty and integrity of Anthony, Steve and so many other contributors will prevail, best before too much economic damage is done.
Brilliant piece of text, Mr Spencer!
I hope you will be both the economic AND science-advisor of the next US President.
Sorry, I meant November 2, 2010 in the first line.
PS
That video I posted was made by internet people.
Tax rate cuts and the Laffer curve.
“President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue–adjusted for inflation–increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year (See Table 4). In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.”
“Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high Interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.
Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future
BTW Brad, for a long time now Wall Syreet had given more money, by far, to democrats, three of the largest recipients were #1 Barack Obama, number two Chriss Dodd ((head of the Senate Finance committe) and of course Barney.
“”””” brad says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Curious George-
Great point : “You’re correct of course, re: the “elite” point of view. But it is not a new phenomenon. “What is best for Caesar is also best for Rome.” Or words to that effect.”
The problem is the Caesar here is the Koch Brothers, the folks funding Rove, and the rest of the billionaires behind the tea party and Fox News. Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want? “””””
Well Brad, there’s a word for your position as outlined here:-
Total ignorance. You’ve obviously NEVER been to any TEA party rally or event; as in “Taxed Enough Already” party.
I have no idea who the hell the Koch brothers are; and I do know who Carl Rove is; and none of them have anything to do with the TEA party; in fact Rove has publicly repudiated it.
I HAVE been to two such events; both public gatherings open to anyone and everyone who wanted to go. The First one was on April 15 2009, as a tax day gathering (in San Jose CA) and the other was I believe July 4th same year same place.
There were no billionaires in attendance; just ordinary folks like me; I had no signs just a silent presence to observe since I’m a legal premanent resident alien; so I can’t vote on anything; so I tend to keep my mouth shut and listen to what the Citizens have to say.
And they were of every ethnic perusasion, every economic stratum, every age from teeners to 90 year olds; workers and retired or college students; just plain ordinary folks; and basically nobody but a couple of mom and pop folks organized those gatherings; and the organisation amounted to nothing more than public notice of time and place.
The thing that infuriates the ordinary obsolete media; like news papers and TV networks and you political Socialists, is that you have completely lost control of the news available to the public; and you no longer can bamboozle folks with massaged “news”; you have become totally irrelevent; even Carl Rove has become totally irrelevent; for he was just a political machinist anyway.
The TEA party, is neither Democrat nor Republican, nor Green nor Libertarian; it is pretty much ordinary folks who would just like to have a government that follows the model that the framers wrote down in the Constitution; and they wrote it in plain ordinary English (of the day) so the people could understand EXACTLY what it means; and it doesn’t need any lawyers or Courts to “Interpret” which basically means put into other words. Well “other words” convey other meaning; and the framers chose to not use “other words” they chose their own words which were written down for all to see and understand.
And as the TEA movement has gathered steam; the deadbeats from the Republican party and the Democrat party have been trying their damndest to figure out how to climb on the train; and to no avail.
The grass roots PEOPLE are not going to be hoodwinked.
CBS, that paragon of good journalism as portrayed by Walter Cronkite; “The most trusted man in America”, and his disciples has been caught with their open mike hand in the cookie jar joking to each other about how they are going to find a child molester among the supporters of a candidate in the Alaska senate race; and also try to get a fist fight going as happened already in one other race. This is the “public’s right to kow media in action; no wonder they are being relegated to the scrap heap of history; well this is more like a dungheap.
Doc Spencer writes:
Maybe these many new young scientists will have fresh viewpoints that will better utilize the data from the wonderful satellites that you describe. It sure would have been interesting to give a questionnaire to all of those young scientists at the meeting to find out what they know and believe about manmade global warming. I would have been very interested in the answer to this question:
“Do you think that the viewpoint of Dr. Roy Spencer: that the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system — is supported by the data which is being collected by NASA’s A-Train satellites?”
I sure would like to see where the numbers fell on that one.
brad says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm (Edit)
Soros on the left (who sat out this election, BTW) vs the Koch Brothers, Target, Fox News, Halliburton, big oil, Murdoch, the coal industry, big polluters, and Wall Street.
You lie. Sorry to be blunt, but you lie. Soros (when he is not making hundreds of billions in oil exploration off the coast of Brazil using US government-guaranteed loans (saving tens of billions more!) while his candidate (Obama) shut down US off-shore production over the same time frame) DID spend almost 150 million in this election through front groups and false NGO agencies. Yet Soros is outspent by the national unions of government “workers” and government employees and government contractors by about 30%. These government unions were largest money raisers this year: and their money went to democrat/socialist/big government spenders. NO union money went to conservative republicans. NONE went to Tea Party candidates.
Wall Street money? It went to democrats Barney Frank (House, MA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Dodd (CT) the democrat national committees. Before that? To Hillary Clinton (D, NY) and to her husband’s ever-running campaigns. You did know that White House visitors to Clinton were required to donate 100,000.00 to the Clinton’s library just to get a meeting, didn’t you? Even the Indian tribes had to “donate” to see their own representative in the Interior Dept.) Wall Street money did NOT go to republicans – because “big government Wall Street” knows it can control and influence/bribe any democrat it wants to, but Wall Street cannot control conservative republicans. The biggest donor to Obama? Wall Street’s Goldman-Sachs. George Soros. Soros’ front organizations. The unions. Overseas money, laundered by anonymous credit card donors that Obama deliberately refused to record, so he did not have to tell anyone where his 2008-2009-2010 money came from.
Obama’s other money? Big oil money and energy money – Like from BP, Exxon-Mobil, Entergy, Duke Power, Exelon, etc. Simply put, dear sir, you are mindlessly repeating the lies you have been told. And these lies are ever the more fruitful because they feed on your own inner lies that began by feeding on your prejudices and your hatreds.
Those companies above, by the way, co-wrote your cap-and-tax bill so THEY could pass alone any rates increases to their customers – all the while ensuring that the bill was voted on AND NEVER READ by the democrats sponsoring it. Why? Because your democrat writers knew they could not withstand scrutiny and the light of day. And, by the way, your vaunted cap-and-tax bill REMOVES taxes and carbon penalties from power plants in democrat districts. It ADDS those carbon taxes and emission restrictions on refineries and power plants and coal mines in republican districts.
Very clever those democrats.
A most excellent article Dr Spencer. Direct, to the point, utterly logical, and only by citing controversial half truths as have already been showing up in this thread can an argument be made against what you have said.
I note also that the elitists paint their opposition as bible thumping bigots forcing their belief system on everyone else, while carefully explaining in short sentences using simple words that anyone who doesn’t understand their point of view lacks the intellect to do so, and must be protected from themselves. I note that there are believers and nonbelievers on both sides of the political divide, but consider for a moment if the broad brush stereotype was true. Those bible thumping right wingers are taught responsibility for one’s actions as well as self reliance, while it is the supposedly atheistic eltists who are certain of their superior intellect and out of responsibility for humanity, seek to impose their belief system on everyone else. Odd that they believe themselves immune from history’s lessons while those they seek to control in the best interests of humanity are under no such illusion. Believers in a deity or not, the right knows that history and climate are cyclical. We’re hostage to the climate’s cycles, but also potentially hostage to those who ignore history’s lessons and seek to repeat them while dragging the rest of humanity along for the ride. We can’t do that much about the climate, but on the rest of it, all we need do is speak up, be clear as Dr Spencer has, and vote.
Government needs to get out of the way and let the Gates’s, Jobs’s, and Buffetts do their thing.
I completely agree.
(There is a technical term that describes trickle-down economics. That technical term is “Economics”. A/k/a “Remedial Economics .001”. I never earned a penny that wasn’t trickled down from someone richer than me.)
I think you may possibly have misunderstood the gist of my last post!
During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[10] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6pp, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988…The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988,…During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[28][29] Most of that revenue growth occurred after the tax reductions. On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Now Brad if you subtract the very expensive military programs from these numbers, then from a purely economic perspective freeing people to produce unencumbered was very positive and large tax cuts were very successful. You stated that Dr Spencer’s post was simple and not nuanced. Actually your post about the Reagan years was very misleading and not nuanced.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again. People who cite this claim forget population growth and inflation during his presidency. Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007: ~0.0%
Wow, talk about cherry picking dates. Reagan was in office from 1980-1988. The first couple of years were a severe recession to which his response were tax cuts. These did indeed result in significant increases in government revenue. Other recent government revenue occurred in the 1990’s (from the contract with America?) and during the 2000’s (after the Bush tax cuts). See this chart here to draw your own conclusions, and don’t rely on the distorted statistics summarized by someone else.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
Ross Barton says:
November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
“These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
There is no Nobel prize in economics. It’s a myth. Google and see.
Dr. Spencer,
Have you had the opportunity to create a power generating turbine 18 times more efficient?
I have and believe me, no one is interested. Companies make more money off of 18 turbines compared to one. No matter how many engineers or hydro companies have look at it and are interested.
[You’ll need numbers and some independent verification of that claim, plus test and reliability data, and systems data (fluid, design data, test data, turbine sizes, material, energy exchange data, thermodynamics input/output, speeds, weights, etc.) . Remember, you are facing a skeptical audience…. Robt]
“”””” brad says:
November 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm
CuriousGeorge-
When has Bill Gates been into politics? Most of his money goes for childhood vaccinations and mosquito nets… Well even quite recently. Bill Gates put up $700,000 to help defeat California’s Prop 23; which would do nothing but delay the implementation of California’s punitive carbon taxing scheme on EVERONE in the State which goes into effect in 2012; and will simply drive bsusinesses out of California to more enlightened States.
Gates along with Kleiner Perkins aka Al Gore stand to reap billions in tax payer funds for their corporate welfare parasite operations in the “green” energy field. The green is in their pockets if prop 23 fails tomorrow. If that “Green” energy creates ANY jobs; they will be in communist red China, and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh; the one place they won’t be, will be in California.
Personally, I don’t begrudge Gates/Jobs/Ellison a brass razoo of their huge fortunes; more power to them; they have provided jobs for tens of millions of people world wide. That doesn’t mean they are all altruistic.
There are more filthy rich Liberals by far than there are filthy rich Conservatives; or any other kind of filthy rich; and the filth tends to stick to people who hang around them; much more than does the rich.
Once helped found a Si Valley startup; 8 of us plus our wives. We had a business plan that called for $780,000 funding (1970). Venture capitalists wanted a piece of us, in the worst possible way; but wanted to give us $1meg in exchange for 80% of the company; with us keeping 20%.
We said thanks, but no thanks; so we cut the plan in half and dug the $390 k out of our pockets and a handful of friends. Started manufacturing on the President’s wife’s Kitchen table. Opened Apr 1st. Shipped first product in July ($10 I hand carried shipment to customer). Did $80k total for year. $1.4 meg first full year, $14meg second full year, $26meg third full year.
When we eventually let the VCs in it was on our terms; not theirs. Became the largest company in that business in the world at one point; twice as big as the second guy. Reached a $50meg per year shipping rate before basic misteaks that our expensive outside Board Directors failed to prevent us from making; and ended up selling it off in a CH-11 situation.
That industry is now in the multi billions. Maybe we got in too early; the money bags were no great help; we grew mostly from bank loans. Never raised any public financing related somewhat to a CA government operator making sure we didn’t end around his political friends. It was a blast; yes a few people got hurt in the foldup; but most escaped with not too much damage.
The skeletal remains still exist as part of a large successful multinational well run company.
I didn’t make a dime; but didn’t lose either. If you get the chance DO it !